Trialmaster delete

[grenadierboy]

G-Man,

Re: Rear seat positioning difference between the standard Station Wagon and the two Belstaff Station wagon editions.

INEOS confirmed that for the 5 seater SW delivered to the Australian market, the position of the rear passenger seat is the same across the 3 versions and that there will be 983mm of space behind the 3 person rear seat.

Therefore, I can only assume that the moving forward of the rear seat on the standard Station Wagon in the UK must be for specific UK market purposes.



 

 

[G-Man]

[QUOTE username=Mark Evans  grenadierboy userid=8954799 postid=1332740449]G-Man,

Re: Rear seat positioning difference between the standard Station Wagon and the two Belstaff Station wagon editions.

INEOS confirmed that for the 5 seater SW delivered to the Australian market, the position of the rear passenger seat is the same across the 3 versions and that there will be 983mm of space behind the 3 person rear seat.

Therefore, I can only assume that the moving forward of the rear seat on the standard Station Wagon in the UK must be for specific UK market purposes.

 [/QUOTE]

Thanks Mark. Yeah I think the N1 vs M1 classification only applies in Europe so Oz and the 'States won't be troubled with it. ?

 

[Arkaig]

I've ordered a 5 seat SW specifically as a M1 vehicle in the UK, and have requested that the rear seat positioning be as in the Belstaff editions rather than the N1 commercial version. It'll be interesting to see what results! 

 

[G-Man]

[QUOTE username=Arkaig userid=8627043 postid=1332742460]I've ordered a 5 seat SW specifically as a M1 vehicle in the UK, and have requested that the rear seat positioning be as in the Belstaff editions rather than the N1 commercial version. It'll be interesting to see what results! [/QUOTE]

Hi Arkaig,

How'd you do that via the configurator? Were you able to add special instructions after the event? Or did you call Ineos and confirm it with them?

 

[Arkaig]

I emailed Customer Services and have requested my order be amended accordingly, particularly as such variants seemingly are available in other markets, and that reduced N1 speed limits with the prevalence of average speed cameras and me just don't agree. ?

 

[stickshifter]

Marsbilda 7 days ago QUOTE: "Is anybody worried at all about buying a car that you haven’t driven"

[QUOTE username=DaveB userid=8923052 postid=1332700382]It seems to be fairly common these days to buy something online you haven’t seen or tried.
When my almost son in law purchased a Mazda MX5 last year they didn’t have one with the turbo petrol motor that he could drive so he he had to try what they had. 
They also didn’t have the specifications he wanted to show him or the colour so he went on pictures. 
As Mark said all the reviews have been good but I too wish that someone had driven it on a highway at speed. 
I just hired a Toyota RAV4 and it was absolutely terrible on the highway.
Vague steering, road noise, wind noise and gutless. [/QUOTE]

Compared to the Grenadier, the base-level (weakest engine) RAV4 has more horse-power per pound of vehicle weight (5.55 hp per pound vs. 4.81). The Grenadier has very low horse power for its weight - the worst of any 4x4 I have run the numbers for. However, the RAV4 has less torque than the Grenadier per pound of vehicle weight (5.03 pound-feet of torque per pound of vehicle weight vs. 5.69). NOTE: these numbers are x100 to make them easier to read (see table below for details).

Of course, max horse power and max torque per pound of vehicle weight are not the only relevant factors in how a vehicle will perform on the highway - but I'm not buying the Grenadier without getting behind the wheel first. The power-curve (i.e. where in the vehicle rpm the power gets delivered) is super-important, and forced induction engines typically make power at much lower rpms than naturally aspirated engines. They also generate more heat under load.

I live at 8,500 feet (over 2,500 meters) and regularly drive much higher, both on backcountry roads and on open highways where the speed limit is 75-80 mph (120-129 km per hour). I'm not buying a Grenadier for use in the backcountry only, and I need it to perform well in a variety of driving conditions. If it doesn't have decent acceleration on the highway, reasonable stability at highway speeds, and a decent stopping distance - its not the right vehicle for me and my family.

Let me be clear: I am not expecting sports-car performance, so please, let's avoid any comments like "If you want a sports-car buy a ______" (thanks in advance). I know this is a Grenadier-enthusiast website, and I too am excited for the Grenadier, but I think its okay to be critical of the product if it is warranted, and to be cautious given the fact that this is a brand-new product from a firm that has no prior experience making cars.


NOTE: the selection of vehicles here is based on ones we have owned, or considered purchasing. It is not meant to be a comprehensive list of all available 4-wheel drive vehicles.

 

[G-Man]

The last generation 2016 Defender had a curb weight of 4,500lbs, 221ft-lb of torque and 120HP. 

Run them numbers ?

0-60 took 18 seconds and it's considered a classic!

 

[stickshifter]

[QUOTE username=G-Man userid=8989993 postid=1332743662]The last generation 2016 Defender had a curb weight of 4,500lbs, 221ft-lb of torque and 120HP. 

Run them numbers ?

0-60 took 18 seconds and it's considered a classic![/QUOTE]

Yup, and that’s completely irrelevant to what I need in a $70 K  vehicle today. 

 

[DaveB]

[QUOTE username=stickshifter userid=8617054 postid=1332743373]Marsbilda 7 days ago QUOTE: "Is anybody worried at all about buying a car that you haven’t driven"

[/QUOTE][QUOTE username=stickshifter userid=8617054 postid=1332743373]

Compared to the Grenadier, the base-level (weakest engine) RAV4 has more horse-power per pound of vehicle weight (5.55 hp per pound vs. 4.81). The Grenadier has very low horse power for its weight - the worst of any 4x4 I have run the numbers for. However, the RAV4 has less torque than the Grenadier per pound of vehicle weight (5.03 pound-feet of torque per pound of vehicle weight vs. 5.69). NOTE: these numbers are x100 to make them easier to read (see table below for details).

Of course, max horse power and max torque per pound of vehicle weight are not the only relevant factors in how a vehicle will perform on the highway - but I'm not buying the Grenadier without getting behind the wheel first. The power-curve (i.e. where in the vehicle rpm the power gets delivered) is super-important, and forced induction engines typically make power at much lower rpms than naturally aspirated engines. They also generate more heat under load.

I live at 8,500 feet (over 2,500 meters) and regularly drive much higher, both on backcountry roads and on open highways where the speed limit is 75-80 mph (120-129 km per hour). I'm not buying a Grenadier for use in the backcountry only, and I need it to perform well in a variety of driving conditions. If it doesn't have decent acceleration on the highway, reasonable stability at highway speeds, and a decent stopping distance - its not the right vehicle for me and my family.

Let me be clear: I am not expecting sports-car performance, so please, let's avoid any comments like "If you want a sports-car buy a ______" (thanks in advance). I know this is a Grenadier-enthusiast website, and I too am excited for the Grenadier, but I think its okay to be critical of the product if it is warranted, and to be cautious given the fact that this is a brand-new product from a firm that has no prior experience making cars.


NOTE: the selection of vehicles here is based on ones we have owned, or considered purchasing. It is not meant to be a comprehensive list of all available 4-wheel drive vehicles.[/QUOTE]
Has to be disappointing that you are not getting the Diesel in the US. 
It is so detuned that it has heaps of potential for tuning. 

 

[ADVAW8S]

But in US, we can map the B58, add a different air filter, catless pipes and get it up to 500hp running on 93 octane for 1500.  Change out the the turbo, do stage two mapping and get it up to 700 for another 1500.  The potential is there if you want the hp and torque and you don't mind running higher octane fuel.  

 

[DaveB]

[QUOTE username=ADVAW8S userid=8452459 postid=1332745232]But in US, we can map the B58, add a different air filter, catless pipes and get it up to 500hp running on 93 octane for 1500.  Change out the the turbo, do stage two mapping and get it up to 700 for another 1500.  The potential is there if you want the hp and torque and you don't mind running higher octane fuel.  [/QUOTE]
93 Octane is pretty low, why not use 98?

 

[DaveB]

I just googled and discovered your Octane rating system is different in the US to the rest of the world. 
But of course it is.
93 is the same as 98 

 

[ADVAW8S]

[QUOTE username=DaveB userid=8923052 postid=1332745355]I just googled and discovered your Octane rating system is different in the US to the rest of the world. 
But of course it is.
93 is the same as 98 [/QUOTE]
Yeah, I can't understand why we have to be so difficult here in the States.  

 

[DaveB]

Yes you have decided to be one of the very few countries to use imperial but imperial gallons aren't good enough so you have US Gallons. 
I am glad we changed from imperial to metric a long time ago

 

[stickshifter]

[QUOTE username=ADVAW8S userid=8452459 postid=1332745232]But in US, we can map the B58, add a different air filter, catless pipes and get it up to 500hp running on 93 octane for 1500.  Change out the the turbo, do stage two mapping and get it up to 700 for another 1500.  The potential is there if you want the hp and torque and you don't mind running higher octane fuel.  [/QUOTE]

Thanks for your reply - I appreciate you providing relevant information. Yes, we can tune the engine here in the U.S. - but I'd prefer to keep the engine stock to avoid any complications with warranty. I'm surprised on two counts: (1) that Ineos is really trailing the competition (especially if you take into account vehicle weight), and (2) that more folk on this forum are not disappointed. I think a lot of buyers of the Grenadier will expect "decent" performance on the highway, and I'm not sure a $70-75,000 vehicle, weighing 5,840 pounds, will sell well in the U.S. (and the Middle East), with 281 horse power and 332 lb-ft of torque. I'm not looking for monster power numbers from the Grenadier, but look at some similar engines (approx. 3.0 liter Forced Induction), in 4-wheel drive vehicles:

Toyota Landcruiser 300 (3.5 liter FI V6): 415 HP / 478 lb-ft torqueFord Bronco (2.7 liter FI V6): 315 HP / 410 lb-ft torqueFord Bronco Raptor (3.0 liter FI V6): 418 HP / 440 lb-ft torqueStellantis (3.0 liter FI I6 Standard Output): 410 HP / 450 lb-ft torqueStellantis (3.0 liter FI I6 High Output): 510 HP / 575 lb-ft torque (not really relevant, but what the hell)Ineos Grenadier B58 (3.0 liter FI I6): 281 HP / 332 lb-ft torque

Couldn’t Ineos have managed 325 HP / 375 lb-ft torque from the factory, and maintained decent reliability?

 

[ADVAW8S]

I currently own the New Defender which is 296hp and 295 lb-ft,cylinder and it weighs around 5k pounds. When I need it to get up and go, it does.   I take if off road on regular basis here in PNW with friends that have the P400 that has 395hp with 405lb-ft.  Everyone comments on how easy mind handles the trails because a smooth power curve.  The one place I seem to struggle is going up the mountain passes at 65 mph.  Having the extra ponies help the other guys but if I take over the manual shifting I can keep the gear hunting to a minimum.  I would think we will get similar experience with the BMW engine in terms of stepping on the gas.  I think we will get a better experience going up mountains because of the extra 2 cylinders.   Also you probably wont void the warranty changing the air filter and both mapping are piggy back mapping.  So you pull the ecu off and the car goes to stock and no one is the wiser.  

 

[DaveB]

I am looking forward to having to change my driving style to suit the diesel Grenadier.
I currently just drive really quickly everywhere and it is tiring at times because you have to be very focused and concentrate.
It will be good to get back to just loping along in a big, heavy, torquey diesel.
Sitting high on comfortable seats with a great view all round. 
I step down into my current car and have to slide my left leg in first then the rest. 
The steering wheel automatically comes back and down once I start the car. 
Super low profile tyres mean I feel every pebble I drive over 
I am not going to carry a heavy load or tow so 250 HP and 550 NM should be good enough with an 8 speed box. 
I can't see it having a problem cruising along the motorway at 120KMH or sitting on 80 - 100 kmh around most of the backroads 

 

[stickshifter]

[QUOTE username=ADVAW8S userid=8452459 postid=1332745715]I currently own the New Defender which is 296hp and 295 lb-ft,cylinder and it weighs around 5k pounds. When I need it to get up and go, it does.   I take if off road on regular basis here in PNW with friends that have the P400 that has 395hp with 405lb-ft.  Everyone comments on how easy mind handles the trails because a smooth power curve.  The one place I seem to struggle is going up the mountain passes at 65 mph.  Having the extra ponies help the other guys but if I take over the manual shifting I can keep the gear hunting to a minimum.  I would think we will get similar experience with the BMW engine in terms of stepping on the gas.  I think we will get a better experience going up mountains because of the extra 2 cylinders.   Also you probably wont void the warranty changing the air filter and both mapping are piggy back mapping.  So you pull the ecu off and the car goes to stock and no one is the wiser.  [/QUOTE]

Good to hear about your experience with the new Defender - linear power is really important off-road, and on-road in winter conditions (snow/ice). Turbo-charged vehicles used to be way too peaky with their power for these applications (until they developed twin-turbos or twin-screws on a single turbo).

Going up mountain passes puts a lot of strain on an engine, and if you are loaded-up, or towing, it tests the power-train. I live at 8,500 feet, and about 100 days per year I drop down a steep and winding canyon (about a 3,000 foot drop, or almost 1,000 meters), and then climb back up. Having an under-powered vehicle or one that is unstable in corners makes this tedious and/or unpleasant. Over the last 20 years I have often paired a sporty all-wheel drive vehicle (2008 Audi RS4, 2014 Audi S4) with a traditional 4-wheel drive (Jeep JKU) and used one or the other depending on application. While this strategy has some advantages, my wife and I have decided it isn't the way to go. Too often, our 4-wheel drive destination involves significant highway travel over 10,000 foot passes, so we want a rugged 4-wheel drive (low range, manual transfer case, locking diffs) that can also handle highway duties. For example, we are just back from a week of climbing in the desert (Moab area), where we were on some rough trails, but had to do a fair amount of highway driving to get there (speed limit 80 mph / 129 kph). Enter the Grenadier. We really hope that this will be a "do it all" vehicle: excellent off-road, durable enough for long-term ownership and overlanding (since there are times of year we can both work remotely), and "capable" on the highway. For us, "capable on the highway" means (1) able to accelerate while going up big mountain passes, (2) tighter steering than a Jeep Wrangler, (3) able to handle an emergency maneuver at highway speed, etc. We think these expectations are reasonable for a vehicle designed and produced c. 2020 (even if it is a solid-axle vehicle), and sold for U.S. $70,000.

 

[paulN186]

Bmw are known for underrating their horse power figures, the b58 in the 340i is rated at 330 ish I think but runs a good chunk more than that so I would think the IG might be more than 281 and as other have said stage 1 map and its 400 bhp but still has good mpg ??

 

[DaveB]

From what I can see this is the version of the B57 Diesel we are getting in Australia which Ineos have quote at 183kw and 550NM 
In the BMW X5 it is 235KW and 680NM 
Ineos rev range for max torque is much lower and wider @1250-3000 compared to standard BMW 1750-2250
This means it is going to be much better for hills, overtaking and towing.
It also shouldn't hunt through the gears so much when pushed. 
My understanding is that they have detuned it so it will run on the worst fuel in the world including used cooking oil. 
I only use the best quality diesel in my current vehicle unless I can't get any so I wonder what this motor will do on the good stuff
It also has a 48V Mild Hybrid starter motor  described here as a supercharger???